Did I say my IQ was higher?
And then also, ya know, my use of the word “apparent” as in seemingly, appearances of?
And what I was surprised to learn is that the different versions of the tests are scored on smaller populations, and many don’t exist at all.
If you can point to the literature that supports what you are saying, I am oen to seeing it. Like I said, I was surprised. Bring it on, I will ask GF about it directly. She administers such tests to the same populations, so for now I am gonna believe her. But she and I are open to discussing this, I am sure it is a broad topic. Was their something specific I said in my recounting of her recounting (and the news reports I saw) that struck you as odd? What is your background in the matter, since I am sure that is the first thing she will ask?
Thanks! Let’s fight some ignorance!
I think this is a great idea for all public officials. We could make them take the SAT with the proctors filming to make sure there is no cheating. We could avoid idiots, or at least have full disclosure this way. And maybe a US history Advanced Placement test thrown in. Taken on the same day as the students for college do.
Why? How would we score it? Is it normed for adults? Isn’t it meant as a predictor of college success (for better or worse) for a mostly young high school crowd?
Same as everyone else. Who gives a shit if they don’t do as well as anyone else. It’s a generalized test of education and ability to manipulate it. What are you going to do? Jeopardy presidential primary contest? That’s run by Alex Trebek, a freaking Canadian! Canadians are socialists. Are you a socialist?!
OK I think you are half joking now, but I will address the half hat isn’t.
How do you suggest that we interpret such numbers? Are you clear on what “normed tests” are? You couldn’t even score it unless you had a sample of similar test takers, which seems unlikely. And if you sanctioned a scoring norm for the population of all possible candidates for public office (maybe worth doing for such an important task!) then what exactly is the SAT measuring in those populations? Not likelihood of college success, but what? That Mr. Candidate scored in what would be the 73 percentile of all men demographically similar to him were they all to take the test?
What could a number like that possibly mean to anybody?
The statistician in me doesn’t get precisely what you want to measure. If you could express that, perhaps a test could be devised.
That isn’t true. You’re repeating this untruth because you are too gullible to realize you’re being lied to.
The teleprompters were for the press conference later.
Does it bother you that you believed something stupid without questioning it?
I’m not a statistician. I truly don’t see why you can’t sit any adult down for an SAT and compare the scores against everybody else. I don’t seem to remember (its been 30 years) but all they know about us are our names, addresses, answers, sex? and age? Maybe ethnicity. If you are referring to age, we simply put them down at the maximum age people take the test.
I’d do pretty poorly compared to HS grads, but any adult could do preparation classes and get up do speed.
You could, but you are not measuring anything useful.
Imagine a bunch of thermometers with no lines or numbers on them.
Then you paint a bunch of lines on them and assign them numbers. You do you best to make sure they are all the same, but the thermometers are not calibrated to anything.
Now give one to each of a hundred people and note their temperatures.
What do you have?
25,25, 24, 27, 26.5 etc.
But 25, 25, 24 etc. what?
It would be pretty much the same if you just took random people and gave them a test that measures something that is not about them. They are just numbers. They are not comparable to the scores of the hs students because of the way the test scores are calibrated to the HS students but not politicians.
It would be like you gave your thermometers to politicians and then regular ones to students, and decided student were normal but politicians are icy cold. Which might be true, but not really supported by the data at hand 
Well, that is what they know about you and me when we take it. But those tests aren’t pulled out of a hat, they are carefully constructed and tested so that the bell curve of scores stays the same year to year, or has some other known pattern, so admission directors can have a reason to compare kids year after year. If the pattern moves unexpectedly, there is a problem with the test. And that is not a trivial matter.
Since maybe the oldest age is 19 or so, it is not fair to compare older people to them. The way the tests are scored, afik, is based on what other people in your group have done. If you are placed in the wrong group, it comes out wrong and is meaningless.
BTW, they probably know your HS, zip code, and hence a little database work ties you to a socioeconomic class with good likelihood too on the SAT…
I’d hope so! I look at test prep occasionally in bookstores, it is pretty disturbing what minimal amount is on some of those tests. I think anyone on this board can nail it very quickly.
I haven’t taken the SAT in 30 years. The only test I’ve taken in the past 20 was the California High School Math exit exam. I took it cold with no review and did rather well, but the test was far easier than the SAT.
Assuming all the various candidates were high school grads, all once took the SAT. I see you’ve used an analogy about uncalibrated thermometers, but I don’t see how it is even slightly applicable as an analogy. If I sat down tomorrow and took an SAT, I would get a certain number of right and wrong answers. So would the other adults taking the test. Assume everyone is the maximum age and draw them on a bell curve. Compare the adults to each other and the high schoolers to each other and past tests. It really isn’t at all like body temperature. My 97.7 is close enough to the bell curve that it wouldn’t mean anything. My recollection is that I got a 1200 when I took the SAT (or thereabout) and an 80th percentile when I took the LSAT (that I remember exactly). Now I don’t want all lawyers as politicians and the LSAT is much more specialized than the SAT. But I still think the SAT is going to give a useful spread when given to 100,000 councilmembers, legislators, judges, and bureaucrats. The Chinese government was doing something similar 1,000 years ago. Why can’t we either use this existing test or adapt it, or the GRE to give us an idea what a person’s education is like.
I took both the SAT and LSAT cold when I was a lad. I did okay. I’m pretty sure I don’t remember that stuff and would do well if I did a review course and some practice tests. I didn’t really get into how to take a test until I was studying for the bar. Preparation courses can help a great deal in my opinion. But then you are testing either raw smarts or the discipline to prepare.
I would also like to know if your objection is based on the cultural nature of the SAT and tests like it. I agree that such tests have cultural bias (I remember they had them, and the AP History test was very much history of white males), but I don’t think that the tests are useless for that reason. My understanding is that they try to remove this bias, or at least claim to try.
Assuming we wanted our public officials to take a test whose results meant something to most Americans, the choice of the SAT would be what I would want to know, as opposed to playing Trivial Pursuit or something less rigorous. I’d do a lot better at TP, but the SAT tests reasoning better and basic high school skills better.
Is there a way that is better if we were to adopt a public office test? Something that measures how well a person’s basic education took hold, their basic reasoning skills, their learning and reading skills, all that a wide variety of the public understood the nature of the test?
That is not how normed tests work though. Sorry, I won’t be able to go into detail so you are on your own. Maybe wiki has a good intro entry, they often do with stuff like this IMHO.
Those are very good scores!
Fine. Decide what you want to measure, and maybe a test can be made.
I am suggesting that whatever you want to measure in that group the SAT will not be the instrument for it.
So lets start there - what are you wanting to measure? What do you want to do with the measures you get for the candidates you care about?
They were using normed tests as a basis for elections?
You can make a test to measure whatever you want to measure. It is not as easy as you think, and it is not going to give you a number you can simply compare and say this candidate is better than that one, but first you have to say what it is you want to measure before you can build a tool to measure it.
If you got those scores then, you would do fine now I bet - they are not much about recitation of facts like the achievement tests.
Separate topic - I have often wondered if someone could apply themselves for as long as it takes, and pass the bar exam. What do you think? I have toyed with some prep material over the years, I think it could be done.
Not saying that makes one an attorney, but as a mountain to climb, a challenge, it has intrigued me a long time.
No, not at all.
Although you can bet that is going to be a hell of an issue if you try to apply a normed test to politicians and then try to compare them.
Have you seen the other thread I am on now where we are discussing cultural norming issues for IQ tests?
Agreed.
I’d want a custom test that predicted 1 - support for my positions and 2 - abilty to get things done
Why are those skills necessary to every politician though? We have an awful awful example here where I live, and people love him despite being somewhat to the right of Hitler with less education than my 2 week old niece.
I dunno - can you not figure that out from basic campaigning?
Personally I would be more interested in a measure of future success than past achievements, but that is just me.
I’ve already pointed to literature that indicates the predictive utility of IQ in terms of speed of cognitive processing, academic performance, job functioning and protective effects on antisocial behavior.
The literature on stability of intelligence is vast. Here’s just a couple of examples:
Schuerger, James M.; Witt, Anita C. (1989). The temporal stability of individually tested intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Vol 45(2), 294-302.
In the study, the average stability across all ages (from initial assessments ranging between age 3 to age 60) and measures was .82. Average stability of IQ measured at age 3(!) across all intervals ranging from 0 to 280 months was .70. Increasing age of initial measurement was associated with increasing stability, which is understandable since our ability to measure intelligence in toddlers is poorer than later in development.
Deary, I.J. et al., (2000). The Stability of Individual Differences in Mental Ability from Childhood to Old Age: Follow-up of the 1932 Scottish Mental Survey. Intelligence. Vol.28(1), 2000, pp. 49-55.
Here you should note that the measure used is not the best measure available to test intelligence, yet the stability over a lifetime is pretty high.
Again, these are just two studies out of hundreds. The intraindividual stability of IQ is not in dispute.
I’m surprised at this, given your previous statement:
If your girlfriend shares this view, it raises questions regarding the ethical use of measures, and she should consult the APA guidelines on ethics carefully.
No, it struck me as terribly incorrect. You still do not seem to understand the term stability, as you continue to refer to the interpretation of one individual’s score when normed reference information may not be available. Understand please that this person’s score will be stable over time (if he is tested again, he’ll score similarly) even if the application of norms from other groups to the interpretation of that stable score remain misleading.
I’ve already said that I have a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. I’ve administered these tests in the past, but do not presently do cognitive testing as part of my regular practice. I do use the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test as part of my present research to screen for IQ in order to assess and control for any effect on responsivity to behavioral interventions.
By the way, should it be surprising that the measure of IQ is stable over time?
I mean, from a lay perspective, wouldn’t you agree that a smart 13 year old is likely to end up being a smart 40 year old?
Our measures of IQ are not perfect, of course, but they are pretty good, and if they are capturing some aspect of “smart” why would you expect them to not be consistent when measured at 13 and 40?
I’m not sure if that was an intentional joke, but it was pretty funny.
OK thanks. I guess asked for it, but only because you mentioned it. It was actually not an issue at the trial as reported to me.
I am sure she is well in line with her ethical requirements. The applicability of this test or that to use was an issue in the trial. Quite simply, whether to use a Spanish test or a English test was the issue. If they were exactly equivalent, there would not be an issue. The difference between a Spanish test and an English test is cultural, right? It is not like they are all translations of each other, they are culturally different because of the language.
I am sure I would not get the same result if I took a Spanish or French IQ test (or any language I don’t speak). Am I special that way? I don’t think so.
Note I am not saying that an individual test is biased against subcultures who might take it. I’ve heard it said, but I don’t have anywhere near enough info to venture an opinion.
But when it comes to choosing which test is appropriate for forensic competency testing of a defendant, the mere question being asked indicates that one test must somehow be biased compared to the other and vice versa. They are ormed on different populations, right?
She and I did not even discuss the stability of his test. Not an issue. Sorry if I gave that impression. Honestly, it didn’t come up. The issue was, which test to use, and, if one particular test was chosen, if the confidence interval surrounding the results was too broad as to be useful for the Court’s determination.
So far as I know, because it was not reported to me, there was no issue raised at that hearing - actually, it was planned to be a 3 day hearing, so only the first day is what I heard about - regarding stability, or what would guess is a related measure, repeatability.
It seems the guy was given 2 different tests, one in English and one in Spanish, and his life may hang in the balance as to how they are interpreted by the courts. The adversarial judicial system presented different explanations for the different results for the Court to consider.
Is there something wrong with that process in your eyes?
That is good to know. In all honesty, I am not familiar with your posts, but on the basis of this I would like to read more. Where do you generally hang out here?
That sounds interesting to me. If you are willing to share, can you point me towards some of your work? If not, I understand. But it does sound interesting.
Note also, that the situation I am talking about is a forensic issue, not a clinical one. I know you get it, but maybe general readers don’t. In your eyes, is there anything that general readers here should know abut the distinction?
Not intentional. My understanding is, if you have an IQ as low as 45, let alone 15, you have very serious developmental and cognitive issues, and you are not going to be scored by taking the same test that folks in the center of bell curve are going to take.
There was a recent discussion, I think it was on this board, but I could be wrong, regarding if IQ tests really measure out to 200 or more. ISTR that there was a side discussion about the low range as well.
That is what I was referring to.
The fact that IQ is pretty much uncorrelated with the success of a politician is a feature, not a bug. There are plenty of pretty charismatic people around, and voters can judge who’s best on that criterion. The point of the test would be to reveal something that voters have a hard time judging.
I think Hentor was referring to age levels in his previous post, not IQ scores.
I understand that. It appears he may have thought what he wrote about prior to my joining the thread was part of the story I told. It wasn’t. I don’t hold any opinions on age level or stability matters. Looks like minor confusion to me, easily and hopefully cleared up when he comes back and catches up.
In my experience, they are very stable, especially when nonintellective (situational behaviors, social-emotional variables) factors can be ruled out.
I’ve seen longitudinal IQ scores from Down’s Syndrome individuals that vary only a point or 3 over 12 years or more.